Assumes neoliberalism is optimal for markets.

[tonywestonuk]

I am a supporter of markets, over equality.

However, I passionatly believe that the neoliberal way of doing things, with trickle down economics and balancing the budgets, Is anti-market. I think there are market crashes every 8 or 9 years because of this, and this hurts the markets as well as anyone else.

So, when I see questions like 'Balance the books, over social inclusion', well, Balancing the books will, eventually cause depression. It has to... there is no other way, which means business collapse, unemployment, etc etc. How can I support this as an Economic positive?

[JoshuaKimsey]

I must admit that as a Capitalist myself, I found this question to be an issue as well. I think it might be better served to say something like, "Should the government increase spending on welfare, even if means an increase in the national debt?" or "Should the government strive to achieve a balanced budget, even at the cost of welfare programs?" This would make the question an agree-or-disagree choice about one thing, instead of it effectively being a Value-Judgment about which is better, the apple or the orange.

[tonywestonuk]

Maybe it should simply be 'Should the government spend less on welfare to encourage the jobless to accept lesser paying employment, even if this means many will end up in poverty?'

[JoshuaKimsey]

That's not a bad way to write it either. The main issue I see is with the fundamental issue of the question. It's comparing government spending (apples) to economic/social welfare (oranges). A government can choose not to spend a dime on welfare for its citizens and still have an unbalanced budget, A la North Korea! I think the question might be better served to just focus on one topic or the other, and since I think a question having to do with welfare already exist, then just asking about having a balanced budget at all cost might be a better way to put it.

[stephendliang]

The reality is, balancing budgets isn't neoliberal. Neolibs like Reagan (0 years at all, and increased deficits tremendously) and Clinton didn't balance the budget generally (with 2 years in Clinton's administration having been surpluses). We rarely have had balanced budgets, if at all in the last 80 years. Neoliberals like spending more but taxing less generally or at best, not increasing them. Balancing the books doesn't cause depressions and less of a market. If so, then the 1800s for the US and Western Europe should have been complete 100% shitholes when compared to years prior. It seems that you have been taught into thinking everything that leans right in general is neoliberalism, even if it doesn't...

[kroppt]

The term trickle-down economics is not a theory advocated for by economists, but rather a strawman against supply-side economics in general. Supply-side economics is a part of laissez-faire capitalism.